Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Moving lexer into a 'Lex' namespace. #3170
Moving lexer into a 'Lex' namespace. #3170
Changes from all commits
dfafff6
915164f
fb27406
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could we put the lexer tests in a
Carbon::Lex::Testing
namespace (or justCarbon::Lex
; I'm not clear on what theTesting
namespace adds), and avoid theseusing
declarations? It can sometimes make sense to put the tests in a different namespace than the code under test, if the client is expected to be in a different namespace, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We'd discussed this and decided on the approach as part of CommandLine discussion, and the resolution was to make tests look a bit like calling code. Here's some context:
https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/655578254970716160/1141155947901882500
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But that's my point: this makes the tests look unlike the calling code, because
LexedNumericLiteral
is only ever used inside theLex
namespace, except in the tests.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As came up in that thread -- using
Carbon::Lex::Testing
creates a bunch of problems because then any common Carbon testing utilities won't actually be in the namespace at all.The
Testing
isn't to isolate the test (the anonymous namespace does that), it is to access testing utilities, and those have to live in a single namespace.Given the tradeoffs, I'm not sure there is a significantly better namespace to use here, and the using declarations seem reasonably minimal?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Another trade-offs I might add on top of chandlerc's comments is that we would definitely have
Carbon::Testing
regardless -- for testing utilities, as noted -- and so one of the stated leanings was to have only that.@geoffromer I'm blocking on your comment, but noting the trade-offs and discussion on #toolchain (and existing code in the style), would you consider it okay to merge? (Changes to other tests are beyond the scope of this PR, but could be cleaned up pursuant to further discussion of the style)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I still don't really understand the tradeoffs being made here, but yeah, I'll take this to Discord.